To: Board of Supervisors
Department or Agency Name(s): Permit Sonoma
Staff Name and Phone Number: Tennis Wick, Marina Herrera (707) 565-1900
Vote Requirement: Informational Only
Supervisorial District(s): Countywide
Title:
Title
Cannabis Program and Environmental Impact Report Update - Informational Only: Project File No. ORD21-0004
End
Recommended Action:
Recommended action
Receive an update on the Cannabis Program and Environmental Impact Report Project. (Informational Only) (Countywide)
end
Executive Summary:
On June 8, 2021, the Board directed staff to complete a comprehensive update of the cannabis program, based on community input, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Given the complicated and evolving public sentiment around cannabis land uses and cannabis itself, development of the proposed program and preparation of the draft EIR has taken longer than previously anticipated. Staff has carefully evaluated and taken into consideration public comment, changing state regulations, and regulatory actions taken by other California counties throughout the process. The proposed program aims to treat cannabis cultivation more like other agricultural uses and permit cannabis supply chain uses (e.g.: distribution, manufacturing, and retail) consistent with similar non-cannabis uses to allow expanded opportunities for economic growth within the cannabis industry. Proposed changes further seek to increase compatibility between cannabis uses and the neighborhoods they are located within or near.
To accomplish these goals, staff propose to:
• Define cannabis in the General Plan as “controlled agriculture,” a type of agriculture that is subject to unique regulations but is included as agriculture in all General Plan agricultural policies unless specifically excluded. (Cannabis would be the only crop defined as a controlled agricultural crop.)
• Permit cannabis uses in commercial and industrial zones consistent with similar non-cannabis uses (e.g.: mostly by right uses with no cannabis-specific setbacks).
• Impose new compatibility setbacks (600 feet) from concentrations of residential uses, i.e., residential zoning (other sensitive use setbacks will also apply, discussed in Setbacks in Agricultural and Resource Zones section).
• Apply the 100-foot property line setback to the entire operation (not just to outdoor and mixed-light cultivation).
Key milestones in the process to date are summarized below:
• September 28, 2021, the Board held a study session to receive a report summarizing results of community engagement conducted in August and early September 2021 and provided direction to staff on overall goals and policy options for updating the Cannabis Ordinance.
• March 15, 2022, the Board adopted a Cannabis Program Update Framework (Framework) to guide development of the project description, CEQA alternatives, and draft ordinance.
• October 4, 2022, the Board authorized the EIR contract award to Ascent Environmental, Inc.
• February 6, 2023, a Notice of Preparation was published to initiate public scoping for the Draft EIR.
• March 8, 2023, a public scoping meeting was held to accept public input on what should be studied in the EIR.
• December 13, 2023, a set of public informational meetings were held to provide an update on the development of "residential enclave" mapping and key program elements.
• April 2, 2024, a draft Cannabis Land Use Ordinance, draft General Plan Amendment, other associated documents (e.g., pipeline recommendations, a table comparing current and proposed regulations), and a revised interactive map viewer showing proposed residential setbacks were published for a 30-day public review through May 3, 2024.
• July 9, 2024, Permit Sonoma published a revised draft Cannabis Land Use Ordinance, revised draft General Plan Amendment, and an extensive Frequently Asked Questions document providing detailed explanations for specific program elements that had generated the most comment and questions.
Based on the proposed changes to the Land Use Ordinance, intensive work began on the draft EIR in August 2024. Staff anticipates releasing the draft EIR for a 60-day public review period in early May 2025.
Discussion:
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND SUMMARY
State
In October 2015, the state enacted the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) to provide a regulatory framework for medical cannabis businesses. On November 8, 2016, the voters of California passed the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). On June 27, 2017, the state passed Senate Bill 94, which consolidated the two laws into the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), creating the state cannabis regulatory structure. On July 12, 2021, the state passed Assembly Bill 141, which made changes to MAUCRSA, and created the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) by consolidating three former state cannabis agencies and transferred all state authority for regulation, licensing, and inspection of cannabis activity in California to the DCC.
Local
Sonoma County first started regulating the cannabis industry with the original dispensary ordinance (Ord. No. 5715) adopted March 20, 2007; and amended on February 7, 2012, to impose a cap of nine dispensaries in the unincorporated County (Ord. No. 5967).
The first comprehensive Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (Ord. No. 6189) was adopted under a Negative Declaration on December 20, 2016, amending Chapter 26 of the Zoning Code to include new definitions and establish special use regulations to allow commercial (and personal) medical cannabis cultivation, and commercial supply chain land uses in various zoning districts.
In April 2017, a multi-department cannabis program was established to implement the ordinances adopted by the Board in December 2016.
On April 10, 2018, the Board conducted a Cannabis Ordinance Study Session and adopted a Resolution of Intent to update the existing Cannabis Ordinance. The update effort was split into two phases. Phase 1 had a limited scope focused on bringing forward amendments that could be developed quickly and brought back to the Board within 150 days, including options to increase neighborhood compatibility and to allow adult use by removing the word “medical” from the existing ordinance. Phase II had a much broader scope requiring additional analysis, including alignment with state regulations (i.e.: adding new license types, updating definitions and reviewing cultivation criteria), and adjustments to existing ordinances to enhance compatibility and other implementation efforts that would require robust outreach and staff analysis.
On October 16, 2018, consistent with Phase 1, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 6245, amending Chapter 26 to allow adult use cannabis in Sonoma County in addition to medical use, enhance neighborhood compatibility with a 10-acre minimum parcel size for cultivation, add new definitions, and make minor non-substantive amendments to harmonize with California state law and regulations, where appropriate.
On December 17, 2019, consistent with Phase 2, the Board approved direction for staff to implement certain changes related to the cannabis program and its management. The primary direction was to amend the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance to expand opportunities for ministerial cannabis cultivation permits to be administered through the Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures.
On May 18, 2021, the Board voted 5-0 to reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMND) and a new chapter 38 providing additional ministerial permitting for cannabis cultivation within Agricultural and Resource zoned parcels. Instead, the Board directed staff to bring forth a timeline and resources plan necessary to undertake a comprehensive update of the cannabis program, including an update to the County Code and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, the Board directed staff to expedite resolution of permits that have been in process since program adoption.
On June 8, 2021, the Board approved an initial request for resources to launch the Comprehensive Cannabis Program Update, consisting of community engagement to inform the Board’s Policy Goals, and gave additional direction on an overall project timeline.
On September 21, 2021, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 6354 to establish a temporary (45-day) moratorium on multi-tenant cannabis cultivation permits to allow staff time to review policy options for current multi-tenant permittees.
On September 28, 2021, the Board received a report summarizing results of community engagement conducted in August and early September 2021 and provided direction to staff on overall goals and policy options for updating the Cannabis Ordinance and associated EIR. The Board was also presented a tentative timeline, which included completion of a draft ordinance framework outlining all potential program elements to consider in the EIR for the new program.
On October 26, 2021, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 6356 to extend Ordinance No. 6354 (temporary 45-day moratorium) and amend the cannabis ordinance to prohibit large-scale multi-tenant cannabis cultivation permits, such that multiple zoning permits may only be issued on a single parcel if the aggregate cultivation area does not require a use permit.
On June 6, 2023, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 6436 to permanently amend the cannabis ordinance such that multiple zoning permits may only be issued on a single parcel if the aggregate cultivation area does not require a use permit.
CANNABIS PROGRAM UPDATE
General Plan Amendment
Introduction and Overview
Currently, the General Plan does not consider cannabis to be agriculture. Instead, cannabis operations in agricultural areas are analyzed like other commercial operations and must generally be secondary to “traditional” agricultural uses.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would define cannabis production as “controlled agriculture,” a type of agriculture that would be subject to unique regulations but included as agriculture in all General Plan agricultural policies unless specifically excluded. (Cannabis would be the only crop defined as a controlled agricultural crop.)
Cannabis is unique from other agricultural crops as it is classified as a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act and its production and use are prohibited under federal law. Largely due to this classification, the County initially defined cannabis as an agricultural product separately from other agricultural crops, and existing policies for agriculture and agriculture related activities did not directly apply to cannabis. However, with the permitting and regulation of cannabis, staff has found that cannabis production has many similarities to traditional agricultural production and is more appropriately recognized as an agricultural use. Still, due to its federal classification, highly regulated status, and the complicated and evolving public sentiment around the crop and its classification, it is best categorized as a controlled agricultural crop that is at times subject to unique regulations to protect public health and safety.
Defining cannabis cultivation as “controlled agriculture,” would:
• Allow for expansion of cannabis uses on agricultural land;
• Negate the requirement that cannabis operators develop another agricultural operation on their parcel;
• Provide a basis for restrictions to be placed on cannabis uses that are not placed on other types of agriculture (e.g.: setbacks, land use permits, limitations on visitor-serving uses); and
• Allow cannabis operations to better integrate into the overall agricultural landscape over time.
Although a primary goal of the proposed reclassification of cannabis as an agricultural use is to treat it more similarly to other types of agriculture, there are some important distinctions that staff propose to address through several new policies. The current draft of the proposed General Plan Amendment is Attachment 1.
Permanent Structures
Compared to most traditional agricultural production in Sonoma County, cannabis cultivation is more likely to occur within fully enclosed permanent structures utilizing artificial or supplemental lighting and imported growth media, a cultivation method that does not utilize the native soil or the sun. When located on agricultural lands, such structures result in a loss of agricultural soil, and crops produced in such structures do not exhibit unique characteristics associated with Sonoma County geographical environmental conditions, like climate, soils, and topography. In addition, year-round cultivation within structures involves continual activity throughout the year, unlike most traditional agricultural crop production, resulting in many of the same physical impacts as agricultural processing and agricultural support uses.
Growth of the cannabis industry in other California counties has resulted in a trend towards large greenhouses in rural agricultural lands. Greenhouses and other agricultural structures can be compatible with surrounding agricultural areas if the size and scale of structures is subordinate to the overall production operation, so that structures support the operation rather than house it entirely. The existing program sets a per-parcel limit of 5,000 square feet of indoor and 10,000 square feet of mixed light cultivation on agriculturally zoned parcels. The proposed program would allow cultivation on up to 10% of the parcel and would not include specific limits for indoor or mixed light cultivation. This change would allow diversified cannabis operations with more flexibility to integrate structures into the agricultural production operation. Staff propose a new policy that would ensure that cannabis production on agricultural land would not be entirely contained within large permanent structures better suited to industrial areas.
• New Policy AR-4g would limit the size of permanent structures used for cannabis production to be subordinate to outdoor on-site agricultural production of any type (similar to current Policy AR-5e limiting development for agricultural support uses).
Agricultural Nuisance Situations
Current General Plan Policy AR-4a establishes agricultural production as the highest priority use on agricultural lands, and further states that residential uses in these areas must recognize that agricultural nuisance situations can occur (such as odors). To protect agricultural operations from nuisance conflicts, current Policy AR-4c recommends establishing buffers between agricultural land uses and the residential interface, provided that such buffers favor protection of the maximum amount of farmable land (the General Plan recommends a physical separation of 100-200 feet). Staff propose a new policy that would allow cannabis-specific setbacks to be imposed, while maintaining consistency with overall General Plan goals to encourage and prioritize agricultural uses on agricultural lands. (See Setbacks section below for details on proposed setbacks).
• New Policy AR-4h provides that, notwithstanding AR-4a and AR-4c, due to its unique classification, cannabis production on agricultural lands should be separated from existing residential areas and established in a manner that protects public health and safety.
• Although not a new policy, staff propose that Right to Farm Ordinance provisions under Policy AR-4d be applied to cannabis cultivation.
Visitor-Serving Uses
Agricultural tourism directly promotes the sale of agricultural products. Visitor-serving uses, such as winery tasting rooms and winery events, attract customers, build a customer base, market products, and build customer loyalty, and are therefore important to sustain long-term agricultural production in Sonoma County.
While cannabis tasting rooms could provide an important opportunity for the cannabis industry, there is insufficient guidance on the impact of consumption amounts to allow open cannabis tasting rooms with unlimited public access in rural agricultural areas that lack public transportation infrastructure. Consequently, staff propose that consumption activities should be limited such that the establishment can more effectively educate and control visitors related to the amount of consumption and the mode of visitor transportation.
• New Policy AR-6i would allow consumption of cannabis in rural agricultural areas only associated with cannabis events and periodic special events (i.e.: no open tasting rooms would be allowed). This policy also clarifies that all other visitor-serving uses would be allowed for cannabis operations (e.g.: sales, promotion, educational activities, and tours).
Land Conservation Act Program (Williamson Act)
Reclassification of cannabis as an agricultural use in the General Plan would also allow it to be reclassified as a prime crop under the Land Conservation Act Program (Williamson Act). Staff are proposing to amend the Sonoma County Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones to classify cannabis as a qualifying agricultural use (prime crop) rather than a compatible use. While cannabis cultivation would be a qualifying agricultural use, due to the canopy limitations discussed below, a parcel under a Williamson Act contract would likely require other agricultural uses on the parcel to meet the requirements of the Uniform Rules.
Cannabis Ordinance - Proposed Sonoma County Code Amendments
**Throughout this section, proposed new and modified code sections are provided in parentheses; existing code sections that apply but would not be modified are specified as existing.
The current draft of the proposed Cannabis Land Use Ordinance is Attachment 2. A table showing which cannabis land uses would be allowed in which zoning districts is provided as Attachment 3.
Introduction and Overview
Most of the text edits to the code fall into one of these categories: 1) Regulate cannabis more similarly to other uses; 2) Remove duplicative regulations to streamline permitting; and 3) Amend the code to allow for new land uses, such as cannabis events and consumption lounges. Noteworthy changes to the code that would apply to all use types include:
• Eliminate term limits and permit renewals
• Implement a Cannabis License program (Chapter 4. Article X - Cannabis Licenses)
• Allow periodic special events to include cannabis sales and consumption (Section 26-22-120. Periodic special events)
Permitting in Industrial and Commercial Zones
Cannabis uses in commercial and industrial zones would be regulated consistent with similar non-cannabis uses. Cannabis uses in Industrial Zones and General Commercial (C3) would primarily be Permitted by Right, including the following:
• Cultivation (industrial only, not allowed in C3) (Section 26-18-115. Cannabis cultivation)
o Use Permit required when Urban Services are not available
o Remove setbacks for mixed-light cultivation
• Centralized Processing (Section 26-20-025. Centralized cannabis processing)
• Testing Laboratories (Section 26-20-040. Laboratories)
o Use Permit required in the General Commercial (C3) Zone District, consistent with existing Section 26-10-030
• Manufacturing facilities (Section 26-20-080. Manufacturing/processing, medium)
o Current prohibition on use of volatile solvents would be eliminated
• Distribution facilities (Section 26-20-165. Cannabis distribution)
o Would also allow non-storefront retailers (delivery only)
Cannabis storefront retail (i.e., dispensaries) would be Permitted by Right in Commercial Zones.
• On-site consumption (i.e., consumption lounges) would be allowed in conformance with Chapter 14, Article VI and/or Chapter 32 Health Code (which would need to be amended) (Section 26-26-025. Cannabis storefront retail (dispensary))
Setbacks in Industrial and Commercial Zones
Current regulations require setbacks for cultivation and storefront retail (i.e.: dispensaries) in all zoning districts where these uses are allowed. However, indoor cultivation and supply chain operations (e.g.: testing, manufacturing, distribution, and storefront retail) do not look or operate differently and cannot be distinguished from similar non-cannabis operations.
Standard base zoning setbacks would continue to apply to all structures in Industrial and Commercial Zones; however, cannabis-specific setbacks and other locational and screening requirements would be eliminated, including:
Industrial and C3 (General Commercial)
• The requirement to screen indoor cultivation structures from public view would be eliminated.
• The 300-foot setback between mixed-light cultivation structures and off-site residences would be eliminated (no mixed-light cultivation structures currently exist in industrial areas).
• The 1,000-foot sensitive use setback between mixed-light cultivation structures and schools, parks, childcare centers, and alcohol or drug treatment facilities would be eliminated.
Commercial (Storefront Retail/Dispensaries)
• The prohibition on allowing a residence on the same parcel as storefront retail (i.e.: dispensaries) would be eliminated.
• The 1,000-foot sensitive use setback between storefront retail and schools, parks, childcare centers, and alcohol or drug treatment facilities would be eliminated.
• The 1,000-foot setback between storefront retail operations on separate properties would be eliminated.
• The 500-foot setback between storefront retail and smoke shops would be eliminated.
• The 100-foot setback between storefront retail and residential zoning would be eliminated
o Note that 7 of the 8 approved dispensaries in the County required a setback waiver to approve.
§ 1 did not meet the 1,000-foot park setback.
§ 5 did not meet the 100-foot residential setback.
§ 1 met neither the 100-foot residential nor 1,000-foot park setback.
Permitting in Agricultural and Resource Zones
Cannabis uses in Agricultural and Resource Zones would be permitted by a Zoning or Use Permit, including the following:
• Cultivation (Section 26-18-115. Cannabis cultivation)
o All cultivation (except crop swaps) would be subject to a use permit to allow for discretionary review of site-specific environmental impacts (e.g.: water, biology, etc.).
o Crop swaps would be allowed by zoning permit, subject to use standards intended to ensure no change in impacts, defined as:
“The replacement of active cultivation of perennial or row crops with outdoor cannabis cultivation or the reuse of an existing nonresidential structure for an accessory cannabis use or indoor or mixed-light cannabis cultivation, involving no or negligible expansion of use.”
o The following accessory uses would be allowed with cultivation:
§ Propagation, research and development
§ Processing (only allowed for cannabis grown on-site)
§ Manufacturing (limited to chemical extraction using carbon dioxide and extraction by physical or mechanical means like ice and water)
§ Packaging and labeling
§ Self-distribution
§ Retail would be allowed in compliance with the standards of Farm Retail Sales (Sec. 26-18-140 & Sec. 26-88-215), except that food sampling, cannabis consumption and the sale of cannabis products grown off-site would be prohibited
o The 1-acre cultivation cap per operator would be eliminated and the 1-acre-per-parcel cap would be changed to 10% of the parcel (Section 26-18-115. Cannabis cultivation).
• The minimum parcel size would be reduced from 10 acres to 5 acres (Section 26-18-115. Cannabis cultivation).
• Centralized Processing (agricultural zoning only, not allowed in RRD) (Section 26-20-025. Centralized cannabis processing)
o A use permit would be required to process cannabis grown off-site, subject to applicable standards (parcel size, setbacks, odor control).
• Cannabis Events (Section 26-18-270. Cannabis events)
o A use permit would be required for all cannabis events which could allow:
§ Up to 104 event days for small events (25 attendees or up to 50 with a shuttle)
§ Up to 2 events with up to 2 event days each for large events (total of 4 events days)
o Cannabis events would need to comply with similar use standards to winery events: hours, on-site parking, food service, traffic management.
o Cannabis events would be subject to site-specific use permit conditions of approval.
o Open “tasting rooms” would not be allowed; consumption activities would only be allowed with permitted events.
**Periodic special events allowed by zoning permit under (Section 26-22-120) are not considered cannabis events but may include cannabis sales and consumption. Periodic special events are limited to a maximum of four in a two-year period.
• An Environmental Screening Checklist will be prepared with the Final EIR to streamline the use permit process for many applications which substantially fall within the scope of the EIR and therefore would only be required to comply with specific measures or to conduct limited technical studies.
Setbacks in Agricultural and Resource Zones
Current setbacks require separation between cannabis cultivation and individual residences and businesses on off-site parcels. With the proposed reclassification of cannabis as an agricultural use on agricultural land, staff have proposed new setbacks focused on protecting residential neighborhoods instead of individual residences, which are not supposed to take priority on agricultural lands.
Proposed cannabis setbacks in Agricultural and Resources Zones would include:
• Property line setback. The cannabis premises would be required to be setback 100 feet from all property lines of the permitted parcel. The cannabis premises is defined as:
“The entire land area, including structures used for a cannabis operation, provided that driveways may be excluded.”
o The modified property line setback would provide greater separation than the current setback because it is measured from the premises and therefore includes all cannabis uses (not just cultivation) and all structures (current setbacks do not apply to indoor cultivation or processing).
o This modified setback would continue to provide separation between cannabis operations and individual residences on adjacent parcels.
• 300-Foot Off-Site Residence Setback. The current 300-foot setback between cultivation uses and individual off-site residences and businesses would be eliminated.
o The Program Update acknowledges that cannabis cultivation is an agricultural use and that nuisance situations, including generation of agricultural odors, are part of that use in agricultural areas. Therefore, staff have proposed setbacks to provide greater separation at the agricultural-residential interface where concentrations of residential development occur (see Residential Land Use Setback below).
o The 100-foot property line setback from the cannabis premises would provide at least 100 feet of separation between cannabis uses and off-site residences and businesses.
o In addition, staff have found the current 300-foot setback difficult to implement as it requires identifying the use of and measuring the distance from structures on properties not accessible to cannabis applicants.
• Sensitive Use Setbacks. The cannabis premises would be required to be setback at least 1,000 feet from each property line of a parcel with a sensitive use that exists at the time the cannabis application is deemed complete.
o Sensitive uses are defined as:
“K-12 schools, public parks, day care centers, and alcohol or drug treatment facilities. In this section, a public park means existing Federal Recreation Areas, State Parks, Regional Parks, Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks, and Class I Bikeways as designated in the Sonoma County General Plan, but not proposed public parks that have not yet been constructed.”
o This modified setback would be measured from the premises to the property line of the sensitive use instead of property line to property line. This change would provide more flexibility to cannabis operators than the current setback because cannabis operations could be sited on large parcels to meet setbacks, rather than requiring that the parcel be entirely excluded.
o Because the setback would be measured to the premises instead of the parcel line, the park setback reduction would be eliminated, allowing for more certainty and simpler permit processing.
• Residential Land Use Setback. The cannabis premises would be required to be setback 600 feet from all properties with Residential zoning (Low, Medium, and High Density Residential (R1, R2 & R3), Rural Residential (RR), Agriculture and Residential (AR), and Planned Community (PC)).
o This proposed setback was set at 600 feet based on air dispersion modeling conducted during development of the Yolo County Cannabis Land Use Ordinance indicating that cannabis odor dissipates substantially at 600 feet from the source.
o This proposed setback is the current staff recommendation to improve neighborhood compatibility by imposing greater setbacks where concentrations of residences occur. This setback replaces the previous “Residential Enclave” setback proposal.
§ Staff first attempted to address neighborhood compatibility through development of Rural Residential Enclaves, as presented at the December 13, 2023 <https://share.sonoma-county.org/link/5HqFfX7p5kA/>, public informational meeting and described in the Rural Residential Enclaves Discussion Paper (Attachment 5).
§ After this meeting, staff evaluated changing various model criteria, but ultimately determined that, regardless of the criteria used in the enclave model, most enclaves were located within or immediately adjacent to residential zoning.
§ Therefore, implementing a setback from all residentially zoned areas provides greater overall protection than Residential Enclaves.
§ Maps showing both the currently proposed 600-foot Residential Land Use setbacks and the previous Rural Residential Enclave 1,000-foot setbacks are provided in Attachment 4. An interactive map viewer is also available on the Cannabis Program Update webpage <https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/administrative-support-and-fiscal-services/county-administrators-office/projects/cannabis-program/cannabis-program-update-and-eir/timeline>.
• Incorporated City Boundaries. The cannabis premises must be setback at least 600 feet from incorporated city boundaries.
o This proposed setback is a component of the staff-recommended neighborhood compatibility setback, as the fringes of incorporated cities typically consist of concentrated residential development.
• Exiting Permits and Applications. The following setbacks would apply to existing operations and to applications approved or deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance:
o Property Line Setback. New structures, the reuse of existing structures not currently used for the cannabis operation, outdoor event areas, and outdoor canopy would be required to be setback at least 100 feet from each property line.
o Offsite Residential Setback. Outdoor canopy, mixed-light cultivation structures, and outdoor event areas would be required to be setback at least 300 feet from offsite residences on residentially zoned parcels.
o Sensitive Use Setback. Approved permits and any amendments thereto would be subject only to the sensitive use setbacks that were applied to the original approval.
** There are six existing operations, and three complete applications located within the proposed new 600-foot Residential setback. The 600-foot setback would not apply to existing permitted operations (or approved/complete applications). Continued operations and any expansion would be required to be setback at least 100 feet from each property line and at least 300 feet from offsite residences located on residentially zoned parcels.
Project Schedule
• May 2025 - Draft Environmental Impact Report released for a 60-day public comment period in early May
• June-July 2025 - Public hearings at the Planning commission will be held in June and July
• August 2025 - Final EIR published, including responses to comments
• September 2025 - Final Planning Commission Hearing
• October 28, 2025 - Board Hearing on the Proposed Ordinance and EIR
Strategic Plan:
N/A
Racial Equity:
Was this item identified as an opportunity to apply the Racial Equity Toolkit?
No
Prior Board Actions:
For a list of prior Board actions related to the full legislative history of the County’s cannabis land use ordinance, see Attachment 2. Actions listed below are directly related to the current comprehensive cannabis program update.
May 18, 2021 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4980692&GUID=5660F6FA-D82C-4CDE-A2CD-4A13DD10D20B%3e:>: The Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to:
1. Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation and disapprove the proposed general plan amendment;
2. Disapprove the Planning Commission’s recommendation and do not adopt the SMND;
3. Disapprove the Planning Commission’s recommendation and do not adopt the Ordinance Adding Chapter 38 to the Sonoma County Code to Expand Ministerial Cannabis Cultivation Permitting in the Agricultural and Resource Zones and Amending Chapter 26 to Expand Cannabis Cultivation Use Permits and Align with Chapter 38; and, that the Board of Supervisors directs staff to schedule a future public workshop, and take other necessary steps, to discuss and develop proposed revisions to the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (Sonoma County Code Section 26-88-250 et seq.) that are to be studied under an environmental impact report.
June 8, 2021 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4969677&GUID=1D8008A1-D8F2-4D66-B35D-4E9382722B18%3e:>: The Board of Supervisors approved an initial resource request to launch the Cannabis Program Update and associated Environmental Impact Report.
March 15, 2022 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5518510&GUID=4652F55D-DC01-4CE0-9301-6244D3E9A491%3e:>: The Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution 22-0088) and Cannabis Program Update Framework, to direct and guide staff in its preparation of a draft ordinance, potential General Plan Amendments, and a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report to amend the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and related regulations.
October 4, 2022 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5852790&GUID=B00888C2-764E-49A7-978F-F5225528B7EB&%3e:>: The Board of Supervisors authorized the Director of Permit Sonoma to execute an agreement with Ascent Environmental, Inc., for the preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report and an Economic Analysis in support of the Comprehensive Cannabis Program Update in an amount not to exceed $623,238.
Fiscal Summary
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:
N/A
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):
N/A
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft General Plan Amendment
Attachment 2: Draft Cannabis Land Use Ordinance
Attachment 3: Cannabis Land Use Table
Attachment 4: Residential 600 Foot Setback Maps
Attachment 5: Rural Residential Enclaves Discussion Paper
Attachment 6: Cannabis Program Update Framework
Attachment 7: List of prior Board actions related to the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:
N/A